Unit 3-Piece Breakdowns & 2 Up 1 Back

[General Staff]

Just to separately identify what I think the advantages of this approach in defence are:

1) You are digging a second line already with the unit behind. If units in front get badly shot up they can retreat through this unit, leaving it to hopefully hold while they get a chance to recover.
2) If one unit gets hit hard you can rotate it out to the rear and switch in the rested one.
3) On from 2 hurt units get a chance to rest and recover some.
4) The rear unit can provide protection to rear arty.
5) If you recombine the unit, they recombine at average values. That means supply can be boosted for the front units that have seen combat just by recombining.
6) Also equipment will be pooled when you recombine and next time you break down passed out equitably- so that unit down to 1/6 Rifle Squads gets the benefit of what the others have in excess of what it has.
7) It hampers the ability of units to breakthrough your lines and then dash to your rear. ZOC costs add up, and the rear unit will contribute if they try and smash through.
8) You can put the rear unit on Tactical Reserve though in TOAWIII with the MRPB switch, this is not as useful as it used to be, when it could burn a whole turn.
9) It also helps in withdrawal because troops have a rear unit to rally on if routed/retreated.

If you look at my turn versus Elmer you can get an idea of what I mean, particularly around Carentan where you can see the approach in its 'purest' form before combat has influenced it.

I actually got this idea from reading a 'HANDBOOK ON GERMAN MILITARY FORCES (MARCH 1945)' issued by the US War Department and based on original Wehrmacht materials. It also discusses a range of other issues such as withdrawals, urban fighting etc... I've attached the doc in a ZIP file in MS Word format for those with any interest. 30 pages so not for the faint-hearted but you might find some useful tips.

[Veers]

Downloaded. Of course, I'm still half asleep, so I can't read it right now, but it sounds good.

[Telumar]

It should be mentioned that there is also a certain disadvantage in splitting units. Let's hear what the manual says us:

Sub units will have only about 80% of the parent unit's proficiency.
[...]
Formations with a large number of divided units are more likely to be forced into reorganization as a result of combat losses.

My intention is not to be counter-productive or to contradict GenStaff's advices, but anyone who is splitting them up should be aware of this and should know by himself to which extent he will practice unit splitting.
In this scenario the germans often have no other choice. In general, what means in other scenarios, i normally don't split units until absolutely necessary. I also won't split them on the offensive, except to complete an encirclement.
The good thing with the unit proficiencies in this scenario is, that the germans in general have a higher proficiency level than the allies, which means that the sub units won't fall under the average allied proficiency level.

Edit: Downloaded the operational doctrines, great stuff.

[Hank2]

I was wondering what others thought about splitting units on the offensive. Seems to me you would want the higher attack strength units to focus on assault hexes.

I can see how splitting units up helps on the defense. It seems you can built a fluid defense better with smaller units. But i'm a newb so I can't comment with any conviction yet. ... more experience i do need

[Telumar]

To add something: In TOAW3 the recombined unit doesn't lose permanently part of its proficiency. Proficiency values will be restored.

[General Staff]

I was wondering what others thought about splitting units on the offensive. Seems to me you would want the higher attack strength units to focus on assault hexes.
I've always found the benefits of splitting units both on defence and offence outweigh the loss of proficiency. And I almost always split units on offence as well as defence.

At the end of the day, much of warfare is about statistics. You're going to lose x% if you do this, or y% if you do that. So the more men and materiel you pile in the greater the absolute losses. I try and use artillery as the main tool, particularly against infantry, and for this I find Limited Attacks at Minimize Losses with preferably Direct Arty Support the way to go. The combats generally only go one round, allow you to see enemy composition through the Detailed Combat Report, and adjust as necessary. I only go in full throttle with unbroken-down units when it's (near) the end of my turn and I have to have a hex. See the thread on Combat Rounds for further thoughts on this.

But I do appreciate Telumar's points and would just say there are different schools of thought on this issue- and advise you to experiment and judge for yourselves. Or play my turn against Elmer for yourselves to see how my approach can work.

[Heinz57]

Would add that defensively, it is invariably better to develop a continuous line of defense even if it requires splitting up units, then to have gaps in the line. Enemy concentration of recon units into that gap sets up flank attacks and all other manner of mayhem. Even low proficiency units in good defensive terrain and decent artillery support can make a good accounting of themselves.

Offensively - the debate can go either way for a number of different considerations which can apply differently to each situation.

[General Staff]

I'm seeing so many games come to grief- though not necessarily loss- over this I thought I'd post a caveat/memory aid.

The question in this scenario should never be 'why break units down?' but rather always 'why NOT break units down?'. IMO if you can answer this Q correctly you're halfway to victory.

If you've a situation where you think you need to keep a unit whole (I'm talking big units not 3x88mm AA units), I believe I can always find an argument against it. Try me. Post your PBL and ask the specific Qs.

[Heldenkaiser]

When I have three battalions in a regiment/brigade, I tend to apply the two up / one back principle to that higher level as well. The two battalions "up" have two companies in the line and one back. But the battalion "back" is kept together for the sake of concentrated power in a possible counterattack. My gut feeling tells me so ... of course I don't do much counterattacking as the Germans in Normandy. :nervous:

Better to have the reserve broken down as well? :surprise:

[General Staff]

When I have three battalions in a regiment/brigade, I tend to apply the two up / one back principle to that higher level as well. The two battalions "up" have two companies in the line and one back. But the battalion "back" is kept together for the sake of concentrated power in a possible counterattack. My gut feeling tells me so ... of course I don't do much counterattacking as the Germans in Normandy. :nervous:

Better to have the reserve broken down as well? :surprise:
Concentrated power equals concentrated casualties. That's the way the game engine works statistically and also in real life. At Verdun in 1917 the French experimented with lesser force up front under the hail of shells and found it worked to a degree. Likewise the Germans on the Seelowe Heights in 1945 (and well before that though perhaps not on the same scale). And scenario scale influences this too- playing Barbarossa 41 I'd do the same but on a higher level just as you suggest.

But putting men in the way of shrapnel in 2WIN just means more casualties and should be avoided. Likewise in reverse and on the (counter)attack, just go in using arty as the hammer with a broken down unit in good shape. It usually works. Experiment. Practice. Fine tune. If you emerge from all this with better tactics than what I'm suggesting, believe me I will be all ears.

[Hank2]

I can see the benefits after playing with it for a while. But I'm never satisfied so I've been experimenting with how to use full strenght units on tac res right behind a line of units broken into 3 using the 2up/1back method.

I read it somewhere that if you expect a strong attack in an area put some strong units in tac res and when they jump in to the fighting they can provide a nice counterattack that could inflict significant casualties on the attacker. Also, I've started breaking down my units when on the attack and it seems to work pretty good.

This subject and the turn resolution/rounds/phases ... whatever you call them issues ... have been the best education I've got so far ... but there's a lot more stuff to know before I get good. :) ... if i ...

I still need lots of help with supply/arty/airpower/etc/etc.

[Heldenkaiser]

This subject and the turn resolution/rounds/phases ... whatever you call them issues ... have been the best education I've got so far ... but there's a lot more stuff to know before I get good. :) ... if i ...

I still need lots of help with supply/arty/airpower/etc/etc.

Ditto, ditto! :nervous:

[pelle]

When using the split units, how important is it to keep the parts close to each other? I presume I need to be able
to gather all the pieces in one hex if I ever get the chance and need to recombine (not likely in this scenario?). Any other effects? Are two parts from the same unit more effective in combat than two parts from two similar units (of the same formation)?

When testing this tactic I soon found that on the defence the units easily retreat and are forced far away from the pretty 2-in-front-1-back initial setup in a lot less structured lines. Even when I managed to keep a line of two in front and one back this was not often three parts of the same unit.

[General Staff]

When using the split units, how important is it to keep the parts close to each other? I presume I need to be able
to gather all the pieces in one hex if I ever get the chance and need to recombine (not likely in this scenario?). Any other effects? Are two parts from the same unit more effective in combat than two parts from two similar units (of the same formation)?

When testing this tactic I soon found that on the defence the units easily retreat and are forced far away from the pretty 2-in-front-1-back initial setup in a lot less structured lines. Even when I managed to keep a line of two in front and one back this was not often three parts of the same unit.
You obviously lose proficiency and that influences combat results, but I've found over time the benefits outweigh this loss. Any unit in a formation will support any other unit in the same formation so this is not an issue.

You will lose that pretty triangular look. War isn't pretty. Or structured. And your first casualty is always going to be your plan. That's why IMO TOAW is so good, becuase it models all these variables and forces you to adapt or... die.

Post any and all Qs here or in other forums and you'll usually find someone has an opinion. Note that an opinion is very different from an answer.

[Telumar]

No plan survives contact with the enemy, this is also true for toaw.

[Hank2]

Is there any comments on using a 1 up/1 back concept?

Instead of splitting units in to 3; IF you don't have a lot of area to cover are there pros and cons to only splitting units into 2 stronger units? (keyword: IF)

Nice options: dig faster (or do they ?); after some entrenchment is achieved you can set the back unit on tac reserve; swap out with little degradation of defensive power; ?? etc ??

hank

[General Staff]

Is there any comments on using a 1 up/1 back concept?
It's scenario-specific and I'm just talking to 2WIN here. In other scenarios (and I don't really do monsters) I still use 2 up/1 back as a default and try and justify exceptions.

It does help digging as a composite unit and I often do this on the way to the HKL, keeping 1 MP spare to dig in somewhere I might hole up later. But I break down armor and sometimes mech en route to the HKL usually to attract more interdiction along the lines of the interdiction thread in this sub-forum. But recombine if I can and they're behind and fairly safe from the HKL in a village say- get the spades out boys and start digging!

Hope this helps.

[Hank2]

I have full intentions of using 2up/1back in my battles. I was just wondering if you had experimented with 1up/1back when you had enough units to build a continuous line of defense. I'm also figuring out the best way to build combined unit defenses with AT and armored units split up and placed with infantry ... this seems to work real well.

by the way, is there a list of TOAW acronyms anywhere?

I know what some are like RBC (I think) ... the retreat before combat one
... but whats HKL mean? Are there more I need to know? ... I have a hard enough time keeping up with 'puter/software acronyms now I need to learn toaw ones too.

excuse my ignorance

[Telumar]

HKL is a german abbreviation for Hauptkampflinie and means Main battle line. Not necessarily toaw related..

[General Staff]

I have full intentions of using 2up/1back in my battles. I was just wondering if you had experimented with 1up/1back when you had enough units to build a continuous line of defense. I'm also figuring out the best way to build combined unit defenses with AT and armored units split up and placed with infantry.

By the way, is there a list of TOAW acronyms anywhere?
1) Depends on scenario. But at this scale 1 up/1 back doesn't leave much room for manouevre. Except maybe some of the poorer quality units, but I tend to just keep these whole and use on secondary duty- garrison, digging etc... Some scenarios- Barbarossa 41- you can do at a divisional scale (i.e. no breakdowns and just 3 units in a formation 2 up/1 back). Here I'm just addressing 2WIN issues- not enough units, a long front, few turns- and what it takes to try to draw or win.

2) Combined Arms stacks are covered elsewhere in various games/threads here. You just need to combine the concept with terrain advantages to make it work well.

3) Acronyms. I generally hate these, along with any kind of 'speak' or political correctness. Keep it simple. But I use HKL because it's shorter than 'Front', I personally like the term and there are a number of German players and why not pander to them once in a while, given they have to deal with our AS (Anglo-Saxon) world and language? I use LA for Limited Attack and M/L/I with L for loss settings. I hardly ever use anything other than LA/ML settings except at turn end or for an exceptional reason (this explained elsewhere also). There's also CS for Combat Support. Other than that most people spell them out. If in doubt ask and nobody will think the worse of you for doing so- most folks try to help here.

And I hope this does some.

[Veers]

Yeah, even I had to pester Telumar and GS about just what the bloody HKL was. :laugh:

[Hank2]

HKL is a german abbreviation for Hauptkampflinie and means Main battle line. Not necessarily toaw related..

i would never have thought that's what that meant.

I can go home from work now. I learned something new. ... and by golly I am going home now
... 'cause I got an itch I need to scratch ... a toaw itch ... and it must be scratched ASAP. (as soon as possible = asap ... but you knew that one I'll bet)

Later
:laugh:

[General Staff]

... 'cause I got an itch I need to scratch ...
Glad you're having fun. I sure am against Elmer- that nasty Rotweiller. Hope everyone else involved is too.

[Heldenkaiser]

Just one thing I've been wondering about - of course it would be best if I could both maintain a continuous frontline and have every third company back in support. But what if I can't? (In my 2WIN game, I often can't.) Is the continuous frontline more important, or the depth provided by "2 up 1 back", even if it comes at the price of having the third frontline hex only covered by ZOCs? Thanks. :rolleyes:

[General Staff]

Just one thing I've been wondering about - of course it would be best if I could both maintain a continuous frontline and have every third company back in support. But what if I can't? (In my 2WIN game, I often can't.) Is the continuous frontline more important, or the depth provided by "2 up 1 back", even if it comes at the price of having the third frontline hex only covered by ZOCs?
Now that's a good Q and one I can't really adequately answer. But it, with other Qs, indicates you are really getting a handle on the game system.

It's where the 'feel' or 'force' comes in. There are some items you can't teach a TOAW player (or pilot):

1) Experience. All I can say is practice hotseat against your worst enemy/best friend- yourself. Or try your new trusty Rotweiller- Elmer. You get to see most things this way and judge for yourself.
2) Taking advice. To your specific Q on 2 up/1 back, I've answered this a number of times for specific situations. I've also mentioned that for me and my 'feel', it's something of a 'gestalt' phenomenon- all the pieces have to work together and that is what you have to find too. Hence my frustration when I see pieces of this philosophy used, others not- the whole may not work. You need to find something that works for you. Experiment.
3) The 2 up/1 back doctrine is not a mantra. In larger scenarios, it IMO works at a larger level without unit breakdowns. Check my own game play here against Elmer. It is a baseline, and I use it and rationalize exceptions. But they have to be good and consider it as justifying it to your CO.
4) Do whatever you feel it takes to draw or win. As in 3 I use a draw as a baseline.
5) Again, I'm just talking to 2WIN here. Some lessons (IMO most) work elsewhere. Judge for yourself- see 1. It's a defensive tactical scenario- a classic example of a fighting withdrawal if done well from the German point of view. You could apply many lessons from here to the Italian Campaign- or vice versa.

Hope this helps.

[Heldenkaiser]

There are some items you can't teach a TOAW player (or pilot):.

Hehe, sure, that goes without saying. :o Still, the advice of a veteran player can save a newbie many hours of frustration even in games that are infinitely less complex than TOAW. Some standard deployment patterns for instance. Of course in the end such things are only the point of departure for learning from own experiences and experiments. But if I just imagine I would have started playing around with the hundreds of pieces in this scenario all on my own without any good idea of what they're good for and what I am doing, I probably wouldn't have lasted two turns, let alone six. :surprise: